The Ukrainian no-fly zone is an issue that will not go away until this war is over. It will be a nonstop demand of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his government. It will be the demand of the Ukrainian ambassador to the US. It will be the demand of the war hawks on the Hill—all of them. It's scary that World War III is becoming the bipartisan consensus regarding how to respond to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
Yet, of all people, perhaps Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) has a second layer to add for why this is a dangerous position to take on this crisis.
Let's get the obvious out of the way. Who do you think is going to enforce this no-fly zone? Estonia? Lithuania? No. We're the ones who would enforce this protocol, which will greatly increase the chance of a nuclear exchange with the Russians. Our fighter jets flying next to Russian fighter jets and preventing them from their bombing runs is bound to end in disaster. Apparently, there are more than a few knuckleheads in Congress—no shock there—who seem to think that the odds of our jets firing missiles to take down Russian fighters and vice versa only exists in the remote category. No. The whole point of avoiding nuclear war is to NOT get into these situations.
I am no fan of @ChrisCoons, but he just explained clearly why we can't enforce a no-fly zone in Ukraine: it would involve taking out air defense systems in Belarus and Russia. In other words, you can't limit it to Ukraine and will have to attack Russia and its ally. Not workable.
— Joel Pollak (@joelpollak) March 16, 2022
Yet, let's get back to Mr. Coons. He noted another reason why this no-fly zone is a terrible idea. The first is that it will involve immediate airstrikes against the Russians and Belarusians. There are SAM missile defense sites in those nations that need to be destroyed for the no-fly zone to be fully and efficiently enforced.
Yeah, that'll increase temperatures for sure. The top could blow off, and that will be the end of civilization as we know it. For years, the position on nuclear war was clear, simple, and easy to follow. It was the "let's not make moves to make such a terrible event more likely" position. Russia certainly tested that in 1961 when it tried to put offensive nuclear missiles in Cuba. Since then, both sides have done well to avoid such a scenario again. In fact, Ronald Reagan came very close to a complete and total de-nuclearization with Mikhail Gorbachev in Reykjavik in the 1980s. What held it up was our refusal to shut down the research and development of our anti-ballistic missile defense system, Star Wars.
It's like fire coming out of my mouth, but I agree with Mr. Coons. The no-fly zone was already terrible on its face, but this added layer exposes why it's not a feasible option.
